Does Darwinism lead to bigotry?

[Peter Grimm]

Also, the actions of the Nazis were never in accord with natural law as described in the Origin of Species, instead they were crimes against nature and humanity. There is no natural equivalent to the atrocities committed by mankind over the centuries.

False

For those who wish to blame Charles Darwin for the actions of the Nazis, you are doing nothing more than illustrating your ignorance of the history of Christian anti-Semitism since about the 5th Century.

What does Christianity have to do with this discussion? Red herring much?

 

[Peter Grimm]

Something can indeed be good, bad, or neutral - and Darwinism, since it makes no moral claims, should not influence anyone's moral beleifs.

Why?

If Darwinism teaches that the culling of the weak from the gene pool ensures the survival of the species, then, if someone wants the species to survive, such selectivity would logically be seen as productive.

This has nothing to do with "natural fallacy."

 

[Peter Grimm]

It's one thing to play this idiotic game of pretend that you've been playing, it's another thing to be too much of a coward to man up and accept the challenge you've been presented.

You behaving in a cowardly fashion does not mean I am missing brain cells. In fact, the missing body parts in such a scenario would be found in a "sack" or a "bag", not a head.

Your "challenge" was a boring re-hash of your original failed argument, which is why I ignored it. I already explained to you what the appeal to nature fallacy is, and why it has nothing at all to do with this discussion.

 

[Dr. Chuckles]

My apologies, I did not mean to be condescending

I know you didn't blame Darwin, I was trying to say that the Nazis used what they considered to be 'scientific and rational' reasoning to justify actions that they would have probably committed without any so-called scientific support. As you note, there wasn't any real scientific basis for their actions but they used something they called 'scientific' as additional support. Much as creationists are trying to use something they call scientific, Intelligent Design, to support their faith in a creator deity.

Just because an advocate for any type of irrational belief, calls their reasoning 'scientific', don't make it so

I am fully aware it wasn't scientific, the point, again, was that it didn't have much to do with the Christian church, either.

 

[Jack Hays]

Why?

If Darwinism teaches that the culling of the weak from the gene pool ensures the survival of the species, then, if someone wants the species to survive, such selectivity would logically be seen as productive.

This has nothing to do with "natural fallacy."

Darwinism teaches no such thing. Darwinism teaches that the species most able to reproduce and transmit its genes to the next generation is the species most likely to survive. Nonsense about culling the weak or the survival of the fittest is shallow anthropomorphizing of the process.

 

[Tucker Case]

Your "challenge" was a boring re-hash of your original failed argument, which is why I ignored it. I already explained to you what the appeal to nature fallacy is, and why it has nothing at all to do with this discussion.

Translation: "I can't perform the task necessary to prove my position correct, but that will do absolutely nothing to prevent me from continuing to pretend my position is correct."

 

[Peter Grimm]

Darwinism teaches no such thing. Darwinism teaches that the species most able to reproduce and transmit its genes to the next generation is the species most likely to survive. Nonsense about culling the weak or the survival of the fittest is shallow anthropomorphizing of the process.

You get points for using the word "anthropomorphizing." Haven't heard that one in a while.

Nonetheless, the term doesn't apply here. The weak are culled from the gene pool in a process that sometimes involves human intervention, and sometimes doesn't.

A pack of lions hunting zebra will pick off the weakest and slowest animal. Thus, the animal will never reproduce, and only the fast zebra will make it to the next generation.

A pack of wolves will allow the strongest wolves to eat first, leaving the weakest only bare scraps. Etc. These types of things happen all the time in nature, and have nothing to do with humanity.

 

[Peter Grimm]

Translation: "I can't perform the task necessary to prove my position correct, but that will do absolutely nothing to prevent me from continuing to pretend my position is correct."

You don't define what tasks are necessary to prove my position correct or incorrect. What a ridiculous assumption.

 

[Jack Hays]

You get points for using the word "anthropomorphizing." Haven't heard that one in a while.

Nonetheless, the term doesn't apply here. The weak are culled from the gene pool in a process that sometimes involves human intervention, and sometimes doesn't.

A pack of lions hunting zebra will pick off the weakest and slowest animal. Thus, the animal will never reproduce, and only the fast zebra will make it to the next generation.

A pack of wolves will allow the strongest wolves to eat first, leaving the weakest only bare scraps. Etc. These types of things happen all the time in nature, and have nothing to do with humanity.

Anthropomorphizing has nothing to do with human intervention. It has to do with imputing human characteristics and motivations to actions that have nothing to do with either. You lose points for not knowing that.
There are many reasons why some zebras survive and others don't. Being fast is only one, and maybe not the most important. Wolves don't "allow" anyone to eat first. The dominant male enforces his primacy. If, however, he has some other genetic characteristic that shortens his life, or is just unlucky, then he is a Darwinian bust.

 

[Peter Grimm]

Anthropomorphizing has nothing to do with human intervention. It has to do with imputing human characteristics and motivations to actions that have nothing to do with either. You lose points for not knowing that.
There are many reasons why some zebras survive and others don't. Being fast is only one, and maybe not the most important. Wolves don't "allow" anyone to eat first. The dominant male enforces his primacy. If, however, he has some other genetic characteristic that shortens his life, or is just unlucky, then he is a Darwinian bust.

I know what anthropomorphize means, jackass.

The point is that the process of culling the weak occurs completely independent of humanity. It's a natural process, so how am I ascribing human traits to something which is of nature?

The rest of your post deals in garbage details which, unless you're a national geographic buff, nobody cares about. It's a tangent that's not germane to our discussion. The central issue is that picking off the weak members of a group is part of Darwinian natural selection.

 

[Jack Hays]

I know what anthropomorphize means, jackass.

The point is that the process of culling the weak occurs completely independent of humanity. It's a natural process, so how am I ascribing human traits to something which is of nature?

The rest of your post deals in garbage details which, unless you're a national geographic buff, nobody cares about. It's a tangent that's not germane to our discussion. The central issue is that picking off the weak members of a group is part of Darwinian natural selection.

Tsk tsk. Name calling is a marker for desperation. Point for me. Nature does not cull the weak. Humans do that. Nature is a neutral arena in which reproductive efficiency may or may not be related to what humans call "strong.":boom

 

[Peter Grimm]

Tsk tsk. Name calling is a marker for desperation. Point for me. Nature does not cull the weak. Humans do that. Nature is a neutral arena in which reproductive efficiency may or may not be related to what humans call "strong.":boom

Awarding points to yourself is a marker of desperation. But hey, have at it.

Too bad you're wrong. Nature doesn't cull the weak? What do you call lions killing the weakest zebras?


Webster's: Weak: not able to resist external force or withstand attack; not able to function properly; lacking skill or proficiency; mentally or intellectually deficient;


Webster's: Cull: to reduce or control the size of (as a herd) by removal (as by hunting) of especially weaker animals; also : to hunt or kill (animals) as a means of population control


So, nature culls (reduces the size of a herd by removing weaker animals) the weak (animals that are lacking in some way.)

 

[Jack Hays]

Awarding points to yourself is a marker of desperation. But hey, have at it.

Too bad you're wrong. Nature doesn't cull the weak? What do you call lions killing the weakest zebras?


Webster's: Weak: not able to resist external force or withstand attack; not able to function properly; lacking skill or proficiency; mentally or intellectually deficient;


Webster's: Cull: to reduce or control the size of (as a herd) by removal (as by hunting) of especially weaker animals; also : to hunt or kill (animals) as a means of population control


So, nature culls (reduces the size of a herd by removing weaker animals) the weak (animals that are lacking in some way.)

Just more anthropomorphizing. The weak may or may not be at a reproductive disadvantage, and nature is surely not interested in population control. It's clear now that you're a sorcerer's apprentice, unable to handle the tools you have put in play. A disappointment, really.:laughat:

 

[Peter Grimm]

Just more anthropomorphizing. The weak may or may not be at a reproductive disadvantage, and nature is surely not interested in population control. It's clear now that you're a sorcerer's apprentice, unable to handle the tools you have put in play. A disappointment, really.:laughat:

I can't decide if you're trolling, or just mentally deficient.

What does nature being "interested" in population control have to do with anything? Where do you find "interest" in the definition of "cull?" It isn't there. That is your deficiency - you're ascribing an incorrect definition to the word.

Take another look at the definition of "cull." There are actually TWO distinct definitions, separated by the word "also."

Webster's: Cull: to reduce or control the size of (as a herd) by removal (as by hunting) of especially weaker animals; also : to hunt or kill (animals) as a means of population control

Since you clearly didn't understand this the first time, let's spell it out. When there are two definitions for the same word, you can use either definition.

Let's simplify this for you. Here's the definition of cull that we're using.

Webster's: Cull: to reduce or control the size of (as a herd) by removal (as by hunting) of especially weaker animals.

Lions hunt the weaker animals in a herd, thus reducing the size of the herd. Thus, lions hunting behavior culls the herd.

Can anyone really argue against this?


Lions are nature. Their hunting behavior is natural. Thus, nature culls the weak.

It has nothing to do with nature being "interested" in anything.

 

[Jack Hays]

I can't decide if you're trolling, or just mentally deficient.

Take another look at the definition of "cull." There are actually TWO distinct definitions, separated by the word "also."



Since you clearly didn't understand this the first time, let's spell it out. When there are two definitions for the same word, you can use either definition.

Let's simplify this for you. Here's the definition of cull that we're using.




Lions hunt the weaker animals in a herd, thus reducing the size of the herd. Thus, lions hunting behavior culls the herd.


Can anyone really argue against this?


Lions are nature.

Lions are not nature. Lions are animals in nature. The ease by which any animal is killed and eaten by another only has meaning in relation to its reproductive efficiency. An old zebra that has sired or birthed many offspring is fully successful in Darwinian terms even if, in its old age, it is prey to lions. The culling has nothing to do with Darwin.:monkey

 

[Peter Grimm]

Lions are not nature. Lions are animals in nature. The ease by which any animal is killed and eaten by another only has meaning in relation to its reproductive efficiency. An old zebra that has sired or birthed many offspring is fully successful in Darwinian terms even if, in its old age, it is prey to lions. The culling has nothing to do with Darwin.:monkey

Are you autistic, or do you have asperger syndrome? Serious question. You seem so fixated with irrelevant details that you don't see the forest for the trees.

At least you now admit that lions cull.

Lions are part of nature. Therefore, nature culls. If you don't believe me, draw a Venn diagram. It's simple logic.

You were proven wrong.

 

[Jack Hays]

Are you autistic, or do you have asperger syndrome? Serious question. You seem so fixated with irrelevant details that you don't see the forest for the trees.

At least you now admit that lions cull.

Lions are part of nature. Therefore, nature culls. If you don't believe me, draw a Venn diagram. It's simple logic.

You were proven wrong.

Sorry, but you don't get to grade your own papers. Your naive construct would get you laughed out of any university, and would merit a failing grade in Zoology 101. With all due respect, you don't know what you're talking about. The anthropomorphic error is the most common in beginners' studies of Darwin, and is a common marker for shallow political exploitation of Darwin. Learn first, then post.:rock

 

[Peter Grimm]

Sorry, but you don't get to grade your own papers. Your naive construct would get you laughed out of any university, and would merit a failing grade in Zoology 101. With all due respect, you don't know what you're talking about. The anthropomorphic error is the most common in beginners' studies of Darwin, and is a common marker for shallow political exploitation of Darwin. Learn first, then post.:rock

You didn't answer my question whether you are autistic or have aspergers? I seriously want to know. I have no problem with autistic people, but I know you have to handle them differently. I have a cousin who is autistic, although right now he is only 7 years old and doesn't say much.

Jack, as for the argument that I am ascribing human traits to animals.... it simply isn't there. Take a step back, calm down, and look at it again. It isn't there.

The word "cull" is not limited to humans. Take another look at the definition. You said that nature is not "interested" in population control... where did that come from? The definition of "cull" neither includes nor implies any mention of "interest."

You are stretching the definition of the word to include things it doesn't include, all to prove your point that I am somehow ascribing human qualities to nature. The sad part is, you really believe you are right.

 

[Tucker Case]

You don't define what tasks are necessary to prove my position correct or incorrect. What a ridiculous assumption.

Translation: "I'm going to keep pretending my point is not a load of bull**** that I'm pretending is true despite the fact that my own words prove me to be wrong."

 

[Jack Hays]

You didn't answer my question whether you are autistic or have aspergers? I seriously want to know. I have no problem with autistic people, but I know you have to handle them differently. I have a cousin who is autistic, although right now he is only 7 years old and doesn't say much.

Jack, as for the argument that I am ascribing human traits to animals.... it simply isn't there. Take a step back, calm down, and look at it again. It isn't there.

The word "cull" is not limited to humans. Take another look at the definition. You said that nature is not "interested" in population control... where did that come from? The definition of "cull" neither includes nor implies any mention of "interest."

You are stretching the definition of the word to include things it doesn't include, all to prove your point that I am somehow ascribing human qualities to nature. The sad part is, you really believe you are right.

Not that it's any of your business, but no, I suffer from no cognitive impairment. If you had bothered to review my profile you might have avoided such a silly question. You mean well, but you haven't the tools for the role you desire. Keep working. You may get there one day.:rock

 

[Peter Grimm]

Not that it's any of your business, but no, I suffer from no cognitive impairment. If you had bothered to review my profile you might have avoided such a silly question. You mean well, but you haven't the tools for the role you desire. Keep working. You may get there one day.:rock

Buddy, I can assure you I have more "tools" than you do. That's why I'm a mensa member and you're a 62 year old stick in the mud.

 

[Knowledge=power]

Buddy, I can assure you I have more "tools" than you do. That's why I'm a mensa member and you're a 62 year old stick in the mud.

MENSA is an elitist group formed to create yet another gap in society. Be proud that you are creating yet another chasm in society when it is not warranted or needed. Mount your certificate on the wall and die happy.

 

[Peter Grimm]

MENSA is an elitist group formed to create yet another gap in society. Be proud that you are creating yet another chasm in society when it is not warranted or needed. Mount your certificate on the wall and die happy.

Should I apologize for being smart?

 

[Knowledge=power]

Should I apologize for being smart?

Lol being smart on a MENSA quiz does not equate to worldly knowledge or insight.

 

[Peter Grimm]

Lol being smart on a MENSA quiz does not equate to worldly knowledge or insight.

That's true.